New York Ethics Attorney and Lawyer for Bar Admissions, Attorney Grievance Defense, NYBOLE, Waiver Petitions, and Professional Responsibility Matters
Protect the Record.
Protect the Future.
I am David A. Lewis, a New York ethics attorney, and this is a selective New York legal ethics practice. I represent lawyers, law students, law school applicants, bar applicants, law firms, and professionals in bar admission, Character and Fitness, attorney grievance defense, NYBOLE, Court of Appeals waiver petition, and professional responsibility matters, when admission, licensure, reputation, or professional standing may be at stake.
In those matters, the next submission can define the issue, test credibility, and shape what follows. The decision makers are the Appellate Division Committees on Character and Fitness, the Attorney Grievance Committees, the New York State Board of Law Examiners, and the New York Court of Appeals, and each reads a submission in its own way.
As a New York ethics lawyer based in Manhattan, I represent bar applicants and attorneys throughout New York City and across New York State.
I handle every engagement personally and accept only a limited number of matters for full representation so that each receives the sustained attention and experienced judgment required when the record may carry lasting professional consequences. I generally do not represent people bringing complaints against lawyers, and I do not handle plaintiff legal malpractice claims.
Every matter begins with a paid, confidential Strategy Session by phone.
Paid · Confidential · Substantive
David A. Lewis personally conducts each Strategy Session.
Before the Next Response
Many clients arrive after something has already happened: a grievance complaint, a request for information, a sua sponte disciplinary inquiry, a Character and Fitness question, a NYBOLE Notice of Charges, a law school or bar application that may need correction, a missed admission deadline, an admission-on-motion problem, an expired or expiring UBE score, or a professional responsibility issue that now has licensing consequences. Several of these carry a date: a NYBOLE verified answer is due no later than 30 days after service of the charges, a grievance response is due by the date stated in the Committee’s letter, and a passing UBE score supports New York admission only for a limited period.
The next response may shape the record and influence the course of the matter. That is true before the first submission and after one has already been made. Once a response, disclosure, amendment, or explanation is part of the record, the next step must account for what has already been said and how any further submission may be read.
The objective is to address the matter as it now stands without compromising credibility or compounding the problem.
The Situation That Brought You Here
Different matters involve different decision makers. A law student addressing a disclosure issue is in a different position from an attorney seeking a Court of Appeals waiver, a New York lawyer responding to an Attorney Grievance Committee inquiry, or a firm managing professional responsibility exposure.
The strategy has to fit the decision maker, the record, and the stage of the matter. Many applicants arrive with more than one of these at once, for example a NYBOLE inquiry and a held Character and Fitness file. Both are New York bar admission matters, both are handled by me, and they are addressed together.
Bar Applicants, Law Students, and Law School Applicants
I represent the law student or bar applicant facing a Character and Fitness question and unsure how much to say, the applicant whose file has been held or whose interview is approaching, the applicant who has discovered that a prior application was incomplete, and the law school applicant deciding what an application requires them to disclose.
The concern is often larger than the underlying event. The disclosure, amendment, or explanation must address the issue without creating a second problem that follows the applicant into admission review. If you are applying to law school and need to decide what the application requires you to disclose, that review is described at How to Amend a Law School Application. Once an application is submitted, a change to a disclosure answer is an amendment, so the disclosure question is best settled before the first application is filed.
Admission Eligibility and Court of Appeals Waiver Petitions
I represent attorneys, bar applicants, and law graduates seeking relief from a New York admission requirement through a verified Waiver of Strict Compliance petition to the New York Court of Appeals.
The problem often surfaces late: practice time that falls short of the five-of-seven-year requirement, remote work that was not credited as expected, a UBE score that expired while plans changed, a NYLC or NYLE timing problem, or a deadline discovered only after it passed. Waiver of Strict Compliance petitions are a significant part of this practice.
The petition must present the chronology, hardship, diligence, and admission equities in a way that gives the Court a credible basis to grant relief. The first decision is whether the record supports filing at all, and that decision is the work of the Strategy Session.
Attorney Grievance Defense and Lawyer Discipline
I represent the lawyer who has just opened an Attorney Grievance Committee letter, the firm managing a sua sponte inquiry, and the practitioner weighing whether a mistake, an escrow problem, a criminal charge such as a DWI, or an out-of-state sanction must be reported.
The response should protect credibility, address the actual issue, and avoid admissions or framing problems that make the matter harder to resolve.
Law Firms and Professional Responsibility Counseling
I advise the firm, legal department, or lawyer that needs an answer before acting: whether a conflict can be waived, what a lawyer departure requires, how to withdraw from a deteriorating representation, what must be disclosed to a client or a tribunal, or which lawyers a grievance complaint reaches and whether they can share counsel in responding. Firms and in-house departments may also retain me to be available as ethics issues arise; the basis is set out in a written engagement letter.
The immediate decision may create a record later reviewed in a disciplinary, malpractice, admissions, or reputational context.
Why Focused Experience Matters
Character and Fitness matters, Attorney Grievance Committee proceedings, NYBOLE matters, Waiver of Strict Compliance petitions, admission on motion, and professional responsibility questions are governed by their own rules and institutional expectations. Each requires counsel to identify the governing issue and develop the necessary record with a clear understanding of how the submission is likely to be evaluated.
Counsel should already know the process and the concerns most likely to draw scrutiny. That experience matters before a disclosure, response, petition, or explanation becomes part of the record.
This work is the whole of my practice.
Focused Practice
More than twenty years of experience in legal ethics, bar admission, attorney discipline, Court of Appeals waiver petitions, and professional responsibility matters.
Professional Responsibility Leadership
Former Chair, for a three-year term, of the New York City Bar Association’s Professional Responsibility Committee. Former member of the New York State Bar Association’s Committee on Standards of Attorney Conduct, which studies and recommends changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct governing New York lawyers.
Bar Admission Experience
More than 1,000 bar applicants advised through admission, Character and Fitness, disclosures, amendments, waiver petitions, and related professional responsibility issues.
Law Firm Experience
Twelve years as an ethics attorney or general counsel to private law firms before founding the practice in 2016.
Legal Ethics Education
Former adjunct professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, teaching legal ethics and professional responsibility.
Peer Recognition
Rated AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell for professional ability and ethical standards.
Core Practice Areas
Bar Admissions and Character and Fitness
Representation for law students, graduates, and applicants dealing with sensitive disclosures, prior omissions, academic discipline, criminal history, financial issues, employment history, substance-related issues, candor concerns, rehabilitation evidence, or questions about how a committee may evaluate present character and fitness.
Waiver of Strict Compliance
Representation for attorneys and applicants who cannot satisfy a New York admission rule as written and need the Court of Appeals to waive strict compliance, whether the obstacle is practice time, an examination score, or a deadline.
Attorney Grievance Defense
Representation for lawyers facing Attorney Grievance Committee complaints, requests for information, sua sponte investigations, formal disciplinary exposure, reciprocal discipline issues, or professional conduct concerns involving client communication, neglect, escrow handling, conflicts, candor, fees, criminal matters, personal conduct, or firm disputes.
NYBOLE Representation
Representation for applicants facing Notices of Charges or other matters before the New York State Board of Law Examiners, including allegations involving fraud, misconduct, examination-related issues, application issues, prior omissions, or conduct that may affect admission.
Application Amendments
Advice for applicants who need to correct, clarify, or amend a law school application, bar application, disclosure of past conduct, or related submission before an omission or misstatement becomes a larger credibility problem, and review of a law school application’s disclosures before the application is submitted.
Learn More About Law School Application Amendments →
Amend a New York Bar Application →
Legal Ethics Counseling
Advice for lawyers and law firms on professional responsibility issues affecting licensure, firm risk, conflicts, confidentiality, withdrawal, reporting obligations, supervision, lawyer departures, client duties, or professional standing.
Judgment Before Language
Disclosures, committee responses, NYBOLE answers, amendments, and waiver petitions require legal judgment before they require language: what must be disclosed, what should be documented, what should be corrected, what should not be volunteered, how to present chronology, diligence, hardship, and equities, when to concede a point, when to hold the line, and how the committee, Board, court, or disciplinary authority that will read the submission is likely to weigh it.
A paragraph can read well and still damage the matter.
Representative Matters
The following examples are illustrative only. They have been anonymized, and certain facts have been altered to protect client confidentiality.
Waiver of Strict Compliance for New York Bar Admission
Record Problem
An attorney admitted in another jurisdiction sought admission on motion in New York. The relevant Appellate Division determined that the attorney’s prior work did not satisfy the required practice time standard, raising both an admission eligibility issue and questions about the attorney’s employment structure, remote work, physical presence, and practice history.
Work Performed
A verified petition for a Waiver of Strict Compliance was prepared and submitted to the New York Court of Appeals. The advocacy focused on the applicant’s practice history, the reasons strict compliance could not be satisfied, the equities supporting admission, and the professional consequences of requiring the applicant to sit for the New York bar examination.
Result
The waiver was granted, and admission on motion followed without the attorney sitting for the New York bar examination again.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Waiver Petition After Expired Admission Deadline or UBE Score
Record Problem
A bar applicant passed the UBE but did not timely complete the New York admission process. By the time the issue was addressed, the applicant faced an expired admission deadline and the risk of having to retake the bar examination.
Work Performed
The work required reconstructing the chronology, addressing the reason for delay, documenting diligence and professional development, and presenting a verified petition asking the New York Court of Appeals to waive strict compliance with the applicable admission rule.
Result
The Court granted the waiver, and admission followed.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Attorney Grievance Committee Investigation Involving Client Funds and Disclosure Issues
Record Problem
A partner at a midsize firm received an Attorney Grievance Committee inquiry involving escrow handling, delayed client communication, and related professional conduct concerns.
The grievance was only part of the immediate risk. An unstructured first response had already been sent, creating admissions and framing issues that required careful management because the matter carried licensing, employment, malpractice, and reputational implications.
Result
After additional submissions, the matter was resolved without formal charges.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Notice of Charges Before the New York State Board of Law Examiners
Record Problem
A bar applicant was served with a formal Notice of Charges before the New York State Board of Law Examiners, creating a serious bar admission and Character and Fitness issue.
Work Performed
The candidate had made a serious mistake and had an otherwise unblemished record. The work required building a mitigation record, presenting an accountable explanation, coordinating later Character and Fitness disclosures, and addressing concerns likely to matter to the Board.
Result
A minimal sanction resulted, and admission without interview was later secured.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Character and Fitness Amendment After Prior Omission
Record Problem
An incoming large firm associate discovered that a prior academic disciplinary matter and a dismissed criminal charge had been described inconsistently across law school applications and New York Bar admission filings.
The concern went beyond correcting the record. The candidate needed to address whether a late amendment would be viewed as candor or concealment while also managing law school, employer, admission delay, and further review concerns.
Work Performed
The work focused on whether, when, and how to amend; how to frame the correction; what documentation should accompany the submission; and how to prepare for possible follow-up review.
Result
Admission was secured without a hearing.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Exceptional judgment, deep experience. I trust him with the most important and sensitive matters.
Peer review, Martindale-Hubbell.
Who I Represent
My practice is focused on lawyers, law students, bar applicants, law firms, and professionals facing serious professional risk matters.
Typical representations include Attorney Grievance Committee investigations and complaints, requests for information, sua sponte disciplinary inquiries, Notices of Charges before the New York State Board of Law Examiners, Character and Fitness matters, prior omissions, application amendments, reciprocal discipline, self-reporting obligations, Waiver of Strict Compliance petitions to the New York Court of Appeals, admission-on-motion and eligibility issues, and ethics questions affecting licensure or professional standing.
This is a record protection practice. The focus is on issues that may affect whether and when a lawyer is admitted, whether a lawyer remains in good standing, and what record follows the client after the immediate matter ends.
I typically do not handle the underlying litigation, criminal, employment, academic, or business matter that may sit behind the issue. Where one of those is in play, I address the professional responsibility, admissions, or disciplinary consequence and work alongside that counsel.
The substantive work in these matters (the disclosure narratives, amendments, committee responses, NYBOLE answers, waiver petitions, and hearing submissions) is handled by me directly. It is not assigned to associates or assembled from templates.
Referrals often come from former clients and their families, criminal defense counsel, white-collar defense lawyers, employment counsel, malpractice counsel, managing partners, professors, and law school administrators.
How a Strategy Session Can Help
Every matter starts with a paid, substantive Strategy Session rather than an intake call. A Strategy Session is paid legal work, not a sales call. I review each request personally to determine whether a Session may be appropriate. If it is, scope, fee, and scheduling can be discussed before you decide whether to proceed. The Session may be all that is needed.
The session is confidential, conducted by phone, and designed to identify posture, documents, deadlines, decision maker, credibility issues, and the strongest next step. Be candid about the facts; embarrassment and blame have no place in the session.
You should expect to work through the issue, identify the most immediate risks, develop a specific strategy, and decide what should happen next. No lawyer can guarantee a particular outcome, but you will receive direct professional judgment about what matters and what does not.
If we agree after the Strategy Session to move forward and sign an engagement letter, the work can begin immediately.
A lawyer may request a Session individually; whether and when to involve a firm, a supervising lawyer, or an employer is part of what the session addresses.
If you are reading for someone else, a family member, a colleague, or a lawyer in your firm, you may arrange the Session or pay for the work. The person receiving the legal advice is the client unless a written agreement provides otherwise, and you may take part only with that client’s authorization, after confidentiality and privilege questions are addressed.
To request a Session, use the buttons below.
Paid · Confidential · Substantive
David A. Lewis personally conducts each Strategy Session.